TonyRo your book is excellent any thoughts on an up-date?

MNb wrote on 01/05/07 at 20:23:18:


How about something like: 1.e4 c5 2.b4 cxb4 3.a3 d5 4.exd5 Qxd5 5.Nf3 e6 6.Be2 Nf6 7.o-o Nc6 8.Re1 Be7 9.axb4 Bxb4 10.Na3 o-o 11.Nc4 Qd8 12.Bb2 b6 13.Bd3 Be7 14.Ng5 h6 15.Qf3 Bd7 16.Ne4 Nb4 17.Nxb6 Nxd3 18.Qxd3 Qxb6 19.Nxf6+ Bxf6 20.Bxf6 gxf6 21.Qxd7 =

That sounds interesting!
Can you tell us at which level you play, and how strong your opponents were?

Also me personally, I'm very interested in a good line against 3. ... ba3:, if there existed something I might take up the wing gambit myself in serious games (in internet blitz games it is a lot of fun)!

This interesting thread was mentioned in the recent topic "Wing Gambit game", worth a bump.

Two critical lines were mentioned in this topic:
A. 1.e4 c5 2.b4 cxb4 3.a3 d5 4.exd5 Nf6 5.axb4 Nxd5
Here MNb mentioned 6.d4 Nxb4 7.c3 Nd5 8.c4 Nf6 9.Ba3, but agreed with FightingDragon that 6...e5 looks strong.
The chesspub guide mentions 6.b5 as in Rewitz-Rasmussen, 1996 and 6.Nf3 as in Kodentsov-Van Assendelft, 2000 and is happy with White's chances. I see no reason to disagree.
B. 1.e4 c5 2.b4 cxb4 3.a3 d5 4.exd5 Qxd5 5.Nf3 e6
I quite like 6.d4 here from Tartakower-Luckis, 1938 which looks like a logical move given that Black didn't claim a bigger share of the centre with 5...e5.
6.d4 Nc6 7.Bd3 Nf6 8.0-0 Bd6 9.axb4 (or 8...Bd7 9.c4) I think White has sufficient compensation for the pawn.
Still, 6.Bb2 scores decently for White, the most recent example being van Dongen-Hekhuis, 2009.

I used to play the Sicilian Wing Gambit sometimes
and scoring 2 wins and 2 draws in serious games even.

But...
1.e4 c5 2.b4 cb 3.a3 d5 4.ed Qxd5 5.Nf3 Bg4 6.ab
Now in one game 6..Bxf3 7.Qxf3 Qxf3 8.gf lead to a draw

6... Nc6 is a problem for white
I think it was played by Jeremy Silman
any ideas for white  ?

As stated in Kaissiber 29 the "Gambiteer" doesn't even mention 3. ... ba3:  which may say a lot about the quality of the book... 

Wind's analysis in Kaissiber is very interesting, but still I think white has problems after both 1.e4 c5 2.b4 cb4: 3.a3 d5 4.ed5: Nf6!
and 4. ... Qd5: 5.Nf3 e6!?

I fear that 5.Bb2 is not the solution to the problem as apart from 5. ... Nc6 black can also play 5. ... Bg4!? when the compensation for the pawn is not clear.

Will you address 4. ... Nf6 and 5. ... e6 in your article?

MNb wrote on 01/05/07 at 20:23:18:


White can play

1.e4 c5 2.b4 bxc 3.a3 d5 Qxd5 5. Bb2 (The Marienbad Variation originally played Rudolph Spielmann v Samisch 1925.) e5 and Spielmann played 6. axb However  6.Nf3 Nc6 7.c4 is the Zajarnyi Gambit. This line needs investigation. possibly black could try 5.... Nc6 and if 6.Nf3 then 6..e6

However when white follows this move order he cannot play the Nanu Gambit. 1.e4 c5 2.b4 bxc 3. a3 d5 4.exd Qxd5 5. Nf3 e5 6. c4

As I see the situation White cannot reach the Nanu Gambit unless black cooperates by playing 5..e5 instead of the better move e6. however some analysis is required to draw the fangs of the Zajarnyi Gambit

@MNb: do you have something to say about 3. ... ba3: ?

I started playing the gambit again in internet games and found out that some people like to decline with
2. ... b6.
2 good ways to counter that:

- 3.bc5: bc5: 4.Nc3 Nc6 5.Rb1 g6 6.g3! with a closed sicilian setup where the b-file (and the unprotected Nc6) are useful for white. In the right moment Nb5 might be annoying.

- 3-5 as above 6.Bc4!? with a kind of GrandPrix-attack.

In the new Kaissiber 29 there is an interesting analysis of 1.e4 c5 2.b4 cb4: 3.a3 d5 4.ed5: Qd5: 5.Nf3 e5 6.Bb2 Nc6 7.c4 and 6.c4!?

Perhaps white's chances are good even objectively, but in practise they are enormous. There are games by IM Anatoli Zajarnyi who beat several strong GMs in that line (in tournament games), and some strong young Ukrainian players also tried the line.

In the meantime, are there any new ideas about 5. ... e6 or 4. ... Nd5 (see posts above)?

I also wonder what is the best against 3. ... ba3: , 4.d4, 4.Na3: or even 4.Ba3:

What happened to the line 2. Nf3 d6 3. b4? A few years ago I read that this was definitely thought to be an improvement on 2. b4, but now I can't find anything on the line. Did it die out, or am I just not looking hard enough (which is likely)?

I already adressed that variation in my post, see above. 

I tried your suggestion 1.e4 c5 2.b4 cb4: 3.a3 d5 4.ed5: Nf6 5.ab4: Nd5: 6.d4
on the internet but there was an opponent who gave me a hard time with 6. ... e5!? and now 7.de5: Bb4:+ 8.c3 Nc3: 9.Qd8:+ Kd8: 10.Bd2 Nd5 =+ or 7.c3 ed4: 8.Qd4: Nc6 9.Bb5 Be7 10.Nf3 0-0 11.Bc6: bc6: and the bishop pair gives black a slight advantage.

After 3.c4 I think 3. ... e5 is strong as you already stated in another thread. You said that it is more difficult to counter in the center than usually in the wing gambit but the opening of Hector-Kudrin,1989 looked convincing to me. As white has wasted a tempo with 3.c4, there is no direct need for quick counterplay.

Some weeks ago I discovered some new ideas in the wing gambit and since then I have played some games with it online.
The outcomes were mixed, but my overall score is not worse than with the open sicilian.

I discovered an old post from MNb where he wrote about the gambit:

MNb wrote on 01/27/06 at 20:39:32:



I think he is right when saying that white gets decent compensation with 3.a3 d5 4.ed5: Qd5: 5.Nf3 e5 6.c4!, this is very much fun for white, at least in blitz!

I found a game by Ruslan Sherbakov where he beat 5. ... e6 :

[Event "Pune op"]
[Site "Pune"]
[Date "2004.09.03"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Sherbakov,Ruslan"]
[Black "Das,Arghyadip"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "B20"]
1.e4 c5 2.b4 cxb4 3.a3 d5 4.exd5 Qxd5 5.Nf3 e6 6.Bb2 Nf6 7.Bd3 Nc6 8.0-0 Be7
9.Re1 0-0 10.Ne5 Bd7 11.axb4 Nxb4 12.Nc3 Qd4 13.Be4 Qb6 14.Nxd7 Nxd7 15.Bxh7+ Kxh7 16.Qh5+ Kg8 17.Na4 Qd6 18.Bxg7 Kxg7 19.Qg4+ Kf6 20.Nc3 Nc5 21.Re3 Qc6 22.Qf4+ Kg6 23.Rg3+ Kh7 24.Qg4 
1-0

An excellent attacking game!
BTW, does Ruslan visit the forum from time to time? Perhaps he could share some thoughts about that game!
To me that looks as if white gets quite some pressure for the pawn with this Bb2,Bd3,Re1,Ne5- plan.

The variation I found least comfortable for white is 3.a3 d5 4.ed5: Nf6!?
Now white can restore material equality by 5.ab4: Nd5: 6.c3, but somehow that is ugly.
MNb, how should white continue after 5.d4 Nb4: ?

I do not play this because of: 1.e4 c5 2.b4 cxb4
a) 3.a3 d5 4.exd5 (4.e5 Nc6 5.d4 Bf5) Qxd5 5.Nf3 e6
b) 3.d4 d5 4.exd5 Nf6 5.Bb5+ (5.a3 Qxd5; 5.c4 bxc3 6.Nxc3 Nxd5) Bd7 6.Bc4 Bg4 7.f3 Bf5
in both lines White's compensation is vague.